The GREEN Streets Act amends Title 23 and related sections of Title 49 to make greenhouse‑gas reductions, per‑capita VMT decline, resilience, and transit accessibility explicit federal performance priorities. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue minimum standards and new performance measures, and it requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and States to analyze and publish the climate and equity impacts of projects that add traffic capacity before approval.
If a State misses the Secretary’s public‑road performance targets, the bill forces a portion of certain Federal apportioned funds to be obligated for projects that demonstrably reduce emissions or advance transit, active transportation, micromobility, or transit‑oriented land use. The measure also creates new transit accessibility metrics, a timetable for DOT rulemaking and reporting, and a federal technical assistance program to help jurisdictions meet the new standards.
For planners, State DOTs, and transit agencies, the bill replaces much of the longstanding, discretionary emphasis on road expansion with a metrics‑driven, conditional funding regime focused on multimodal access and emissions outcomes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a “Combating Climate Change” performance goal into 23 U.S.C. §150, directs the Secretary to set minimum standards to reduce per‑capita VMT, improve road resilience, and pursue net‑zero GHGs on public roads, and adds transit accessibility measures to 49 U.S.C. §5326. It requires MPOs and States to analyze impacts of capacity‑increasing projects and to publish those analyses before project approval.
Who It Affects
State Departments of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies and authorities, federal grant administrators (FHWA/FTA), transit‑oriented developers, and local governments that host new capacity projects or receive apportioned federal highway funds.
Why It Matters
The bill ties federal highway dollars to quantifiable climate and accessibility outcomes and creates a funding diversion mechanism for States that fail to meet targets—transforming project selection incentives and raising the regulatory bar for approving new lane miles.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The GREEN Streets Act rewrites how federal transportation performance is measured and enforced. It adds a standalone ‘‘Combating Climate Change’’ purpose to the statutory list of national performance goals and directs the Secretary to promulgate—and periodically update—rules that establish minimum standards for reducing per‑capita vehicle miles traveled, improving public‑road resilience, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions toward net‑zero.
Those standards must include methods to measure CO2 and other mobile‑source pollutants, noise, and multipollutant impacts.
The bill creates a distinct approval pathway for projects that increase traffic capacity. It defines ‘‘covered projects’’ as projects funded under Title 23 that add new travel lanes or convert shoulders into lanes, or any project receiving at least $25 million in federal funds.
For each covered project, MPOs (and States for statewide planning) must conduct and publish analyses of expected effects on per‑capita VMT, mobile source GHGs, and non‑single‑occupancy‑vehicle trips, and must use EPA environmental justice screening tools to analyze localized pollution and toxic exposure impacts on environmental‑justice communities.Beyond analysis, the bill imposes a funding consequence. If a State reports that it has not hit the Secretary’s public‑road standards, it must obligate a specified share of certain apportioned highway funds the next fiscal year to projects that support the targets—examples listed in the bill include transit expansion, increased transit service, transit fare reductions and priority treatments, active‑transportation infrastructure, micromobility services and infrastructure, and land‑use changes such as increased density and transit‑oriented development.
That obligation requirement increases over time until the State achieves its targets. The statute also requires that before a new single‑occupancy‑vehicle capacity project proceeds, planners demonstrate the State is making progress on keeping the National Highway System in a state of good repair and show the capacity project is more cost‑effective than an operational improvement, a Title 49 chapter 53 transit project, or a non‑SOV freight project.On transit, the Act broadens section 5326 to add ‘‘transit accessibility,’’ ‘‘transit stop distance,’’ ‘‘transit mode share,’’ and ‘‘first‑last‑mile accessibility’’ as metrics.
The Secretary has one year to set national standards and performance measures, and covered entities—MPOs over 250,000 population and States that contain them—must set targets and file an initial report 180 days after the standards are set. The law requires recurring reporting schedules and directs DOT to provide technical assistance and analytical tools, with optional technical support extended to rural, Tribal, and other noncovered jurisdictions.
Several cross‑references in Titles 23 and 49 are updated so these new measures feed into existing performance reporting and grant programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Covered projects trigger extra review if they add lanes or convert shoulders, or if they receive $25 million or more in federal funds.
If a State misses the Secretary’s public‑road targets, it must obligate 33% of its 104(b)(1) apportionment and 10% of its 104(b)(2) apportionment (excluding suballocations) to projects that reduce emissions or improve multimodal access.
The obligation requirement increases by 2 percentage points in the required 104(b)(1) share each fiscal year the State continues to miss targets, until compliance is achieved.
Before approving new single‑occupancy capacity, MPOs/States must show progress on a state of good repair and that the capacity project is more cost‑effective—by benefit‑cost analysis—than an operational improvement, eligible transit project under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, or a non‑SOV freight improvement.
The Secretary must publish transit access standards within one year and covered entities must set targets and submit an initial report within 180 days of those standards being issued; DOT must then schedule recurring reporting and provide technical assistance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds climate and transit performance measures for public roads
This section inserts a new national objective—‘‘Combating Climate Change’’—into the statutory list of performance goals and requires the Secretary to promulgate rulemaking that establishes minimum standards and measurement methods. Practically, DOT must define how States calculate per‑capita VMT reductions, resilience benchmarks, and greenhouse‑gas metrics (including CO2 and other gases), plus measures for air and noise pollution on public roads. The provision also expands the list of performance measures to include transit accessibility, transit stop distance, and transit mode share by cross‑reference to Title 49.
Pre‑approval analyses for capacity‑increasing projects
The bill requires MPOs (for metropolitan areas) and States (for statewide planning) to conduct and publish analyses for any ‘‘covered project’’—a project that adds lanes or converts shoulders, or that receives at least $25 million in federal funds. Analyses must estimate effects on per‑capita VMT, mobile‑source GHGs, and non‑SOV trips and, where applicable, use EPA environmental‑justice screening to document impacts on communities of color, low‑income, Tribal or Indigenous communities. The text also adds explicit planning goals—reduce GHGs and decrease per‑capita VMT—to the metropolitan and statewide planning statutes to align selection criteria with these analyses.
Cost‑effectiveness and state‑of‑good‑repair prerequisites
Before a jurisdiction may carry out a new single‑occupancy‑vehicle capacity project, the MPO or State must demonstrate: (1) documented progress toward a state of good repair on the National Highway System; (2) that the proposed capacity project supports the State’s performance targets; and (3) that a benefit‑cost test shows the capacity project is more cost‑effective than an operational improvement, a chapter 53 transit project, or a freight‑improving non‑SOV project. The net effect is to require planners to compare capacity builds directly against transit and operational alternatives.
Funding consequences for missing public‑road targets
This is the bill’s enforcement lever: States that report missing performance targets must obligate a defined share of certain federal highway apportionments to eligible projects that advance the targets (transit expansion, service increases, fare reductions, active transportation, micromobility, and land‑use projects among them). The statute ties the obligation to annual performance reports and escalates the required 104(b)(1) obligation by 2 percentage points each fiscal year the State remains noncompliant. The obligation remains until the Secretary determines the State has achieved the standards.
New transit accessibility metrics and covered entities
Section 5326 is expanded to define ‘‘transit accessibility,’’ ‘‘transit stop distance,’’ ‘‘transit mode share,’’ and ‘‘first‑last‑mile accessibility’’ and to create the concept of a ‘‘covered entity’’—MPOs with populations of 250,000+ and States containing such MPOs. The Secretary must issue national standards and performance measures for those metrics within one year, and covered entities must set targets and report on baseline conditions (including the share of housing units and roadways with sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes).
Reporting cadence and federal technical help
DOT must require initial reports from covered entities within 180 days after the transit standards are set, then establish a schedule for subsequent reports. The Secretary must provide technical assistance and analytical tools to both covered and noncovered jurisdictions (rural and Tribal communities) to support target setting and performance reporting. The bill also updates cross‑references across Titles 23 and 49 so the new metrics feed into existing programs and capital eligibility rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Urban and transit‑oriented communities—better odds of federal investment in transit, sidewalks, and bike infrastructure as the law channels money to multimodal projects when States miss road‑centric targets.
- Transit agencies and operators—new federal emphasis and eligible project categories explicitly support service expansions, fare reduction strategies, and transit priority treatment as compliance tools.
- Environmental justice communities—mandatory EJ screening using EPA tools forces planners to quantify local pollution and may make mitigation or project redesign a precondition for capacity projects.
- Micromobility and active‑transportation providers—these modes are listed among eligible project types for redirected funds, opening a clearer pathway for federal support of sidewalks, lanes, and shared vehicle services.
- Planners and metropolitan planning organizations with multimodal strategies—MPOs that already prioritize transit and nonmotorized infrastructure will have a stronger statutory footing when justifying investments.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Departments of Transportation—face new compliance obligations, potential diversion of traditional highway funds to multimodal projects, and the political consequence of losing flexibility over apportionments.
- Metropolitan planning organizations—must conduct and publish additional climate, VMT and EJ analyses for covered projects and defend benefit‑cost comparisons, increasing staff workload and analytic demands.
- Highway contractors and firms focused on capacity expansion—may see a reduced pipeline for large lane‑addition projects as States shift funding to transit and active‑transportation investments.
- Smaller and rural jurisdictions—may lack data and technical capacity to meet the new metrics and reporting expectations even with federal assistance, and could lose discretionary influence over federal highway dollars.
- Federal agencies (FHWA/FTA/EPA)—administrative load will rise as agencies coordinate standards, provide technical assistance, review reports, and make determinations of State compliance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is straightforward and structural: the bill uses federal funding pressure to push States away from road expansions toward lower‑emission, multimodal options, but measurement and funding mechanisms required to enforce that push can penalize jurisdictions that lack transit alternatives, data capacity, or the political consensus to reallocate resources—so the same tool that advances emissions goals may also exacerbate regional inequities or leave critical maintenance needs underfunded.
The bill creates a pointed policy shift but leaves several practical details unsettled. Measurement choices—how to allocate changes in VMT to a particular project, how to convert operational improvements or land‑use changes into comparable benefit‑cost figures, and how to account for induced demand—are technically difficult and can materially affect whether a State meets targets.
The Secretary is charged with setting the standards, but the statute gives little direction on baseline years, modeling assumptions, or whether greenhouse‑gas accounting must follow EPA protocols; these choices will determine stringency and room for gaming.
The funding redirection mechanism is blunt: obligating fixed shares of apportioned formula funds to eligible project types may help accelerate transit and active modes but also risks underfunding highway maintenance or critical freight corridors in States with limited modal alternatives. The benefit‑cost test requirement raises comparability problems: capital‑intensive rail projects and operational fixes use different temporal profiles and benefit streams, so a single methodology could bias choices.
Finally, the EJ screening requirement compels quantitative local analysis, but without dedicated, sustained technical capacity and funding, smaller jurisdictions may struggle to comply, shifting the burden to MPOs or increasing reliance on consultants—creating equity and implementation trade‑offs the statute does not resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.